gweilo8888: Subby: "Seattle woman attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation is an attention whore bat-shiat crazy a bat-shiat crazy attention whore"

Aar1012:FTA - "'If corporations can have the rights as people, so can buildings' said Aivaz, referencing a Supreme Court decision on political advertising."

[i3.photobucket.com image 320x240]

STARE DECISIS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

/GOOD NIGHT!

Really? If one inanimate object can be classed as a "person", why not another?

The fact is that the USSC chose not to follow well-established precedent with Citizens' United decision.. If a tool intended to do a particular job - which is to reduce individual financial risk & to maximize profit - can be considered a "person", then so can other tools. A hammer; a dining room table; a building. There's no real distinction between them.

A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.

Millennium:A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.

This. The point of the decision was that the government has no business limiting political speech, which is to say speech about the government, no matter what collecive or other entity is doing the speaking. I would go even further and say that there is clear conflict of interest inherent in any attempt by the government to limit speech about itself.

Wait a second... if corporations are people (my friend), then isn't it wrong for the government to stop them from getting married (a merger if you will)? I mean, unless they're the same gender. Then it'd clearly be morally wrong, right? But corporations don't really have different genders, so if mergers are legal then they're a kind of a civil union of sorts and other people (like the kind with flesh and blood) should have those rights too which in turn means that same sex couples can now get mergers unless the government intercedes.

Wait another second, corporations can be bought, sold, and owned. That's slavery. Free the slaves! Corporations should be freed by their owners and allowed to live as they please!

Millennium:A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.

So, each shareholder of BP should be charged with 11 counts of murder for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and have all their assets confiscated to pay for the cleanup & restitution for the businesses effected. If they want all the rights of people they should have all the responsibilities, too.

Right?

But, that won't happen. As you well know, corporations are created specifically to prevent such from happening. Corporations are not people. They are tools. Period.

So, each shareholder of BP should be charged with 11 counts of murder for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and have all their assets confiscated to pay for the cleanup & restitution for the businesses effected.

Wasn't $20-30 billion (whatever it was) enough, or at least a good start?

I would say it's negligence, not murder. I don't think anyone specifically set out to blow up a rig and kill a bunch of workers, since that's really bad for business. Even evil CEOs in top hats and monocles don't want to hurt business.

If they want all the rights of people they should have all the responsibilities, too.

Well, if we tax corporations, they should have representation. You don't tax tools.

Or if we ban every other group from having any influence, such as unions, clubs, etc.

Zavulon:Millennium: A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.

This. The point of the decision was that the government has no business limiting political speech, which is to say speech about the government, no matter what collecive or other entity is doing the speaking. I would go even further and say that there is clear conflict of interest inherent in any attempt by the government to limit speech about itself.

Wow, someone was awake during class.

I was hopeing the Court would rule otherwise. Had an ambulance jockey lined up to sue SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the other numerous alphabet groups, just so I don't have to listen to them come elections time. I could have made good money, to go away.

Ah, that explains it. Yeah, Capitol Hill; you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy in Seattle.

Ohhhh! So you're from Bellevue. Can you please tell your farking vapid fratboy cokehead douchebag loser trustafarians to stop using my neighborhood as their weekend getaway? Btw, It is not "ironic" to play Journey on the jukebox in every bar you walk in to, it's just sad.